Three Traits Fills the Card

A simple change, attributing three characteristics to each tribe instead of two would go a long way toward realism and make the game more dynamic.

A couple of examples help illustrate the point.

Rome is a military/commercial civ. But how can Rome not have the expansionist trait? Imagine a military/commercial/expansionist Rome. A much better scenario for empire building, no?

How about an England that is seafaring/commercial....and industrious. In the 19th century heyday of the empire, England's industry dwarfed that of the rest of the world. The island country produced 53 percent of the world's iron at one point! Insert the industry and you have truly Splendid Isolation.

At the height of their 16th/17th century glory days, the Spanish were at the doorstep of the Muslim world and so, of course took their post as the bastion of Catholicism seriously. And, obviously, they were seafaring. But they were also a gold-obsessed empire competing heartily with the English and French. Add the commercial trait and you've got the real Spain.

True, the Germans historically have been militaristic and scientifically inclined, but arguably the key to their fierce buildup to two world wars was their industry. Add this trait and the true Germany emerges.

And what about the French. This tribe could be improved vastly by being totally reconfigured as a agricultural/commercial/militaristic civ. France was mainly agricultural long after other European powers industrialized. The commercial aspect speaks for itself. While the French as we know them today are hardly militaristic, remember Napoleon, endless wars with Britain and that the Germans lived in fear of a French war of revenge during much of the 19th century.

Food for thought, anyway.

agreed...three traits would be more realistic for almost all civs...

Americans: Industrious, Expansionist...and in the 20th century the became Commercial

Carthage: Industrious, Commercial, Seafaring

India: Religious, Commercial, Agricultural

The list goes on and on...

Not really. Some might become too powerful.

Imagine an industrious, agricultural, religous Egypt. Not only would they build roads quickly, they grow quickly, and to boot, they'll be able to build quicker culture.

Add agriculture to China. Agr-Mil-Ind. Not only would they grow quickly, they have cheap barracks, and higher chance of promotion.

Or, put the settler-party combo together - Agr/Ind/Exp. The extra free settler or two can really boost expansion.

I think it would take the unique part of each tribe somewhat away from that tribe

Spain should never get the commercial trait. Sure, they were "gold obssessed", but that New World gold destroyed their commercial centre as a viable concern for centuries. Most thought it was pointless developing a strong economy when there was all that gold flooding in instead.

In civ terms, they didn't build any banks or marketplaces because they have 100 gold a turn coming in from their plundering colonies.

CivEconomist said:

I think it would take the unique part of each tribe somewhat away from that tribe

Click to expand...

Not so. Actually, going to 3 traits per civ results in MORE combinations. Do the math.

With 2 traits: 8!/6!2! = 28
With 3 traits: 8!/5!3! = 56

So with 3 traits, more unique civs are possible. I believe that there will be either 48 or 64 civs with Civ4 and its expansions.

How about creating a set of negative traits? Each civ would get 2 bonus traits and a penalty trait, reflecting an area in which they were particularly weak. For example, the USA would get the bad diplomats trait, while Germany would get the landlubber trait.

The problem with adding more traits is that, as CivEconomist said, things become more generic and less unique.

While there are more possibilities, there are also more civs that have each trait, meaning less uniqueness. Unique combos, yes. But if you look at it the right way you'll see that all it does is muddy the playing field. Instead of 5 civs out of 25 that have Industrious you'd have 15 out of 45 (just an example). The proportion of Ind civs increases from 0.2 up to 0.33, making them more common and less unique.

That's a good point. The scenario I envisioned would only give third traits to those civilizations that were historically dominant. Empire builders like the Romans, Byzantines and English would surely dominate varioius scenarios while leaving some other civs (such as the Persians and Ottomans) competitive but a little lacking.

It kind of mimics some of the Conquest games. In the Rise of Rome, most of the other civs are weaker. Better than Barbarian, but not quite equal. An example of the type of gameplay I envision is pitting the English, Spanish, French and Portugese against each other (pick one to play), with let's say the Ottomans, Persians, Mongols and Zulu as lesser civs. Or the Romans, Carthaginians and Greeks, with the Ottomans, Persians and Zulu as lesser civs.

I'll play a game like this soon and report on the quality of the gameplay.

The possibility of 3 traits has merit. I can also see the argument that it would make some civs too powerful. But I'm wondering why balance is so important anyway? Heck, you couldn't say honestly that our historical civs have been balanced.

If Egypt had appeared in a more fertile area of the world, wouldn't it have been much more successful than it was? And it Was very successful for its time and environment. Geography will always have a huge impact on how powerful a civilization becomes.

Negative traits would be useful as well, but what I'd Really like to see are some new additional traits added to the existing ones. There are a few threads in this forum that suggest many new possibilities, like 'Diplomatic' or 'Philosophical', etc.


-Elgalad

Balance is important for competitive games and games against other players. If everyone wants to play Egypt or Germany what's the point in having other civs in the game? Variety? So what?

Balance is the key to games. It's no fun to play a game which isn't balanced. It's either too easy or too hard.

Why do you think so many people like the Mayans and the Celts? Here's a hint, it's not because they have a great interest in pre-Roman Europe or Mesoamerica.

You can give 3 to some and miniture American flags er 2 to others. Then give the civs with 2 traits another building or unit only they can build to balance. Or make all the traits equal so none or obviously better than others. Or better have a slider with a value for each. Germany could be military 5 while America is military=3 and Sioux is 1.

The traits in Civ 3 were meant to be balanced. Do you think they tried to make some better than others?

The problem is that things will never be fully balanced. Of course, we can hope that there's nothing so imbalancing as Agricultural in CIV but there will still be differences that make some "better" than others in a majority of situations.

Initially, I drooled (figuratively) over the three traits in some scenarios. And refused to play other because the trait combos looked bad. Then I just learned the game mechanisms better.

For CIV4, I think traits should just be optional techs, perhaps incremented in parts over the eras (Commercial 1, Commercial 2, etc..)

That.... and was said, Industrial, Agricultural, Religious would dominate so well it'd be severely unrealistic.


And except for Militaristic, Agricultural and Industrial, most of the traits aren't too signicant.

Rome is a military/commercial civ. But how can Rome not have the expansionist trait? Imagine a military/commercial/expansionist Rome. A much better scenario for empire building, no?

Click to expand...

I think a better way to go would be to give civs an initial set of 2 traits, and then have these traits-and the national identity itself-'evolve' according to the players strategy!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Well I think such traits shouldn't be attributed previously to each civ. Maybe some of you should take a glance on my thread "New shield/food output system".

Instead of beggining the game with special traits, each civ would develop its own traits depending on starting location, resources available etc...

It's ridiculous when you choose Portugal to play with, and your starting location is inland or highland...what would be the advantage of Seafaring in such a location?And how would "Portuguese nomad ancestors" (as it says in the beggining of the game) have been able to develop seafaring trait without sea nearby? Doesn't make sense to me...

But this in only my opinion...

How about giving each trait a depth of two and give each civ three points to invest in traits, either set with three from the beginning of the game or set and given one at the time at the entering of a new era?!

edit: I'd like to keep the historical accuracy, each civ should be represented according to their history.

Loppan Torkel said:

edit: I'd like to keep the historical accuracy, each civ should be represented according to their history.

Click to expand...

well if you are to keep historical accuracy the starting locations should also be considered in detailed to keep historical accuracy...for instance aztecs couldn't start near the poles, russians couldn't start in a small island, etc etc...this would turn the game a bit dull, since in every game you would know where to look for particular civs.

what if you start with Scandinavian (perhaps experts in Seafaring) and your starting location is surrounded by desert and plains? where is the historical accuracy in that situation?

When you mention "traits given at a time in the beggining of a new Era" - that's exactly what I meant to say when I suggested the development of traits...but that development should depend, in my opinion of the starting locations and sequence of events of the game, and shouldn't be predetermined...

ok, here's a radical idea...

Instead of being assigned traits, you research them!

The catch is, researching the trait takes 20(?) turns, regardless of other factors. There is no opportunity cost involved - you don't miss out on researching something else in this period.

Traits favoured by that civ (such as seafaring for Vikings) take less time, and traits especially disfavoured (seafaring for Mongols) take longer.

Once you have two traits, the only way you can gain a third is by dropping one of those traits, and you must drop the trait before you begin researching the new one.

rhialto

i don't like the idea of "reseaching" traits...traits were supposed to be special abilities developed by human communities as a result of dozens of years of experience in specific environmental conditions...such special abilities would therefore cause an overall shift in a variety of aspects of each civilization (war, trade, lifestyle, etc)...so, researching a trait in such a short time span as 20 turns wouldn't be very realistic and would be far too easy and unexpensive to achieve...

at least if traits could be "researched" they should take a very long time, therefore representing a large-scale investment and an enormous commitment into that overall shift...